*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE. Versus

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE. Versus"

Transcription

1 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.807/2008. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD & ANR. Petitioner Through: Mr Prem Kumar and Mr Sharad C. Jha, Advocates. Versus COL. Y.L. SUD... Respondent Through: Mr K.K. Bhuchar with Mr Pushkar Sood & Ms Kanchan Bala, Advocates. CORAM :- HON BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest? RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the plaintiff in a suit before the trial court and with respect to the order dated 27 th May, 2008 non-suiting the plaintiff and consigning the file to the record room. The petitioner/plaintiff has been non-suited on an application of the respondent/defendant in the suit, under Order 4 Rule 1(3) of the CPC. CM(M) 807/2008 Page 1 of 11

2 2. The petitioner instituted the suit from which this petition arises for the relief of injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the possession and use of the petitioner of an immovable property. 3. The counsel for the respondent at the outset took a preliminary objection as to the very maintainability of this petition. He contended that the suit before the trial court had been preferred by M/s Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd; however the petition before this court is preferred by M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. He contends that the petitioner herein is not a party to the suit from which the petition arises and there is no explanation therefor in the body of the petition. The attention of the counsel has been invited to the memo of parties, where it has been stated that the said M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd was formerly known as Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd. The counsel however contends that inspite of the change of name having been alleged to be effected long back and during the pendency of the suit before the trial court, no application was moved in the trial court for such change/substitution. 4. Change of name of a corporate entity in terms of Section 21 of the Companies Act is not a case of substitution within the meaning of Order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC inasmuch as there is no assignment or transfer or succession and no change of the entity. The petitioners have before this court filed the certificate of change of name issued by the Registrar of Companies which shows that the name of M/s Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd stands changed to Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. The counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention to the order dated 22 nd February, 2007 in FAO (OS) 454/2006 of this court arising from another legal proceeding between the parties relating to the same property. A perusal of the said order shows that a similar plea was taken by the respondent herein before the Division Bench of this court also and was negated. In the CM(M) 807/2008 Page 2 of 11

3 circumstances, the preliminary objection of the counsel for the respondent is vexatious and has no force. 5. The counsel for the respondent contends that on the original plaint, there is an endorsement of the reader of the trial court, pursuant to the order for the office to check, that the original documents relied upon by the plaintiff had not been brought to the court. He further contends that the respondent on 23 rd February, 2005 filed an application before the trial court averring that the photocopies of the documents filed by the petitioner in support of its claim of title and possession of the suit property do not inspire confidence and for direction to the petitioner to file the original agreement to sell, sale deed, power of attorney on the basis of which sale deed was executed and on the basis whereof the petitioner so claimed title and possession of the property; the petitioner on 25 th October, 2005 filed a reply to the said application contesting the same. The respondent thereafter filed an application under Order 4 Rule 1(3) of the CPC for non-suiting the plaintiff for having not filed the original documents before the court. 6. Both the aforesaid two applications were taken up for consideration on 7 th May, 2008 when the court noted the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that there was no necessity of filing the original documents on the record. The court however observed that the petitioner inspite of repeated opportunity had not filed any reply to the application of the respondent under Order 4 Rule 1(3) of the CPC and further ordered that in view of the fact that the petitioner is relying on various sale deeds, agreement to sell, GPA etc which are mentioned in the list of documents of which photocopies have been filed on record, one last opportunity was granted to the petitioner to file the originals on record and it was further ordered that failing which the plaint shall be deemed to be non instituted in accordance with Order 4 Rule 1(3) of the CPC. CM(M) 807/2008 Page 3 of 11

4 7. It is further the contention of the counsel for the respondent that the petitioner inspite of the order aforesaid did not file the documents and on the contrary filed an application for review of the said order. The trial court on 27 th May, 2008 i.e. in the order impugned in this petition noted that i. It is not the case of the petitioner that he may be allowed to give secondary evidence; ii. that the counsel for the petitioner had stated that the originals are with some financial institution but the name of the financial institution was not informed; iii. that last opportunity had been granted to the petitioner; that the petitioner had alongwith his application for review filed certified copies of the documents; iv. having held so, the trial court held that the petitioner has been unable to satisfy the court as to where the originals were and had given an evasive response. The trial court dismissed the application of the petitioner for review and allowed the application of the respondent under Order 4 Rule 1(3) of the CPC and further observed in view of the above the suit is deemed to be non instituted. 8. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had under cover of list of documents dated 8 th August, 2005 filed the original documents and had otherwise filed the photocopies of the documents and as noted by the trial court also had, filed certified copies of the sale deed relied upon by the petitioner. 9. However, before entering into the aforesaid factual matrix, since the order of non suiting the petitioner under Order 4 Rule 1(3) of the CPC is found by this court to be novel, first the legality of the said order shall be tested on the premise that the petitioner had not filed the original documents. CM(M) 807/2008 Page 4 of 11

5 10. I have inquired from the counsel for the respondent whether there is any precedent of such non suiting of a plaintiff under Order 4 Rule 1(3) of the CPC. He candidly states that he has not been able to find any. Since the said provision of law is not one which is often invoked or dealt with by the court, it is deemed expedient to set out the same herein below. 1. Suit to be commenced by plaint. (1) Every suit be instituted by presenting a plaint in duplicate to the court or such officer as it appoints in this behalf. (2) Every plaint shall comply with the rules contained in orders VI and VII, so far as they are applicable. (3) The plaint shall not be deemed to be duly instituted unless it complies with the requirements specified in sub-rules (1) and (2). w.e.f Sub Rule (3) of aforesaid has been inserted vide Amendment Act 1999, 11. A reading of the aforesaid provision would immediately show that sub-rule (3) under which the trial court has acted does not empower the court to non-suit the plaintiff or dismiss the suit or reject the plaint. In my view, the aforesaid provision does not give any power to the court to dismiss the suit as has inter alia been done by the trial court, though termed as non-suited Wherever the legislature desired to empower the courts to dismiss the suit or reject the plaint, it has been expressly so provided. Reference can be made to Order 7 Rule 11, Order 8 Rule 10, Order 9, Order 11 Rule 21 etc. of the CPC. The language of sub-rule (3) aforesaid is distinct. It does not say that the court shall dismiss the suit or that the court shall reject the plaint. All that it states is that the plaint shall not be deemed to be duly instituted unless compliance with the requirement mentioned therein. In my view, the only impact of Order 4 Rule 1 CM(M) 807/2008 Page 5 of 11

6 (3) can be qua the date of institution of the suit. If the defendant is able to show to the court that the plaint as instituted did not comply with the Rules contained in Orders 6 and 7 of the CPC as far as applicable as mentioned in Order 4 Rule 1(2), it is open to the defendant to contend that the plaint shall be deemed to be instituted only after the said defects had been complied with. The notes on Clauses of the CPC (Amendment) Bill, 1999 also provide that with a view to dispel the doubts when a suit is regarded to have been instituted, Clause 14 inserts a new Sub Rule (3) to provide that the plaint shall not be deemed to be duly instituted unless it complies with the requirements specified in Sub Rules (1) & (2). 12. Instances are plenty where the non-compliance with the various requirements of Orders 6 and 7 have been held to be a mere irregularity capable of being cured and not fatal to the institution of the suit. The courts have repeatedly held that if there is any defect in the institution of the suit, an opportunity has to be given to the plaintiff to cure the said defect and only when the plaintiff, inspite of opportunity, fails to cure the defect would the court be empowered to reject the plaint. This court has held in Rajeshwarha Vs. Sushma Govil AIR 1989 Delhi 144 that even where the suit is found to have been instituted and the plaint signed and verified by a person not duly authorized by the plaintiff, it is open to the plaintiff to subsequently ratify the said action. Thus to my mind there is no power in the court to dismiss the suit or reject the plaint under the aforesaid provision. 13. Order 4 aforesaid also does not provide any consequences. Wherever else in CPC, a provision is made for dismissal of the suit, rejection of the plaint or withdrawal of the suit or the like, a consequential provision is found for the right of the plaintiff to sue or being not entitled to sue on the same cause of action. There is no such provision in Order 4. The only logical conclusion is that Order 4 CM(M) 807/2008 Page 6 of 11

7 is not actionable per se and is only a provision affecting the date on which the suit shall be deemed to have been instituted i.e., for the purposes of limitation only. 14. Though the suit in the present case was instituted in the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Delhi but I may noticed that the Original Side Rules of the High Court of Delhi provide for scrutiny of the plaint and for grant of time to the plaintiff to remove the defects/objections, if any, in institution. There are a number of judgments which have held that delays in re-filing of the suit are not to be governed by the provisions of the Limitation Act and power of the court to condone the delay in re-filing is much wider and more liberal than the power otherwise to condone the delay under Section 5 or under any other provisions of the Limitation Act. Reference in this regard can be made to Indian Statiscal Institute Vs. Associate Builders AIR 1971 SC 335 The practice directions issued by the High Court for Civil Courts in Delhi contain a para materia provision in direction No The counsel for the respondent/defendant has next drawn attention to the Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC. He contends that under sub-rule (1) thereof, the plaintiff is required to only file copies of the documents but is required to produce the original documents for inspection of the court. He has contended that the plaintiff in the present case failed to do so inspite of express objection of the reader of the court. However, the fact remains that notwithstanding the said objection, the court nevertheless proceeded to admit the plaint and also to issue notice thereof to the defendant. This circumstance would lead to the inference that the court waived the requirement even, if any, of production of original documents. CM(M) 807/2008 Page 7 of 11

8 16. I have recently in Aktie Bolaget Volvo Vs. R. Venkatachalam MANU/DE/1690/2009 held with reference to the various provisions of the CPC and the Indian Evidence Act that there is no requirement whatsoever for the parties to file the original documents in the court and the only requirement is for production i.e., giving inspection of the originals to the opposite party, if so required and that too at the stage of admission/denial of documents. 17. Order 7 Rule 14, Sub-rule (3) is as under: (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. The aforesaid provision provides the consequences of non-production/non filing of documents. The only consequence provided is that the plaintiff is barred from proving the documents save with the leave of the court. I have repeatedly put to the counsel for the respondent/defendant that if, according to him, on non production of the original documents, the suit is to be dismissed under Order 4 as has been done in the present case, the occasion for applicability of sub-rule (3) aforesaid would not arise. Though, the counsel could not give any reply but subsequently contended that per contra if it is to be held that notwithstanding non production of the original documents, the suit is to proceed and the court has the power to subsequently also permit the plaintiff to produce the documents, the same would be in negation of Order 4. The said contention of the counsel for the respondent/defendant is not tenable in view of the interpretation of Order 4 given hereinabove i.e. with the only effect thereof is on the date of the institution and not on the factum of institution or on the maintainability of the suit. CM(M) 807/2008 Page 8 of 11

9 18. The counsel for the respondent/defendant has also contended that though the Supreme Court has held various provisions of the CPC couched even in mandatory form to be directory for the reason of the consequence of default having been provided but there is no consequence provided in Order 4. This is again erroneous. As aforesaid the consequences of not filing of the documents is provided in Order 7 Rule 14 (3) and the only other consequence can be as to the date of institution. 19. The counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has also drawn attention to Vidyawati Gupta Vs Bhakti Hari Nayak (2006) 2 SCC 777. In that case also the Division Bench of the High Court relying on Order 4 Rule 1 (3) had held the suit to have been not validly instituted for the reason of the plaint being not accompanied with an affidavit in support of the contents thereof and had vacated the interim order in the suit on that ground with liberty to the plaintiff to apply afresh after the irregularities in institution of the suit had been cured. The Supreme court held that the requirements of Orders 6 and 7 of the CPC are procedural in nature and any omission in respect thereof will not render the plaint invalid and that such defect or omission will not only be curable but will also date back to the presentation of the plaint. The counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has correctly contended that the said judgment applies on all fours to the facts of the present case and in view thereof the effect of Order 4 Rule 1 (3) is not res integra. 20. The observations of the trial court as to the petitioner/plaintiff having not applied for secondary evidence are also found to be erroneous. I have recently in Prem Chandra Jain Vs. Sri Ram MANU/DE/2860/2009 deprecated the practice of filing applications for permission to lead secondary evidence. There is no basis in law for the said practice. The documents are permitted to be proved by primary or by secondary evidence. If a party is desirous of proving the document by CM(M) 807/2008 Page 9 of 11

10 secondary evidence, it will have to, during the course of its evidence, lead evidence not only for laying foundation for reception of secondary evidence but also prove the document by secondary evidence as prescribed. The court merely on an application is not competent to decide whether to allow secondary evidence or not. Moreover, the issues had not been framed in the suit and the question of the plaintiff seeking permission to lead secondary evidence did not arise. 21. I have also perused the trial court file summoned to this court and find therein at least some of the original documents on the basis whereof the plaintiff claims title and possession of the property. I have found agreements to sell and possession receipts in original to have been filed by the plaintiff. The Division Bench of this court has in Asha M. Jain Vs. The Canara Bank 94 (2001) DLT 841 held that the courts have to take judicial notice of the practice prevalent in Delhi of transfer of properties on the basis of agreement to sell, power of attorney, Will etc and thus merely because the plaintiff had not filed any sale deed in its favour was not a ground for the trial court to dismiss the suit inasmuch as it was open to the plaintiff to prove through such agreement to sell, power of attorney, possession letter etc. that the title in the property stood transferred to the plaintiff. I also find the plaintiff to have filed on record certified copies of the two sale deeds with respect to the share in the property in favour of the plaintiff. It is not incumbent upon the plaintiff to file the original sale deeds in the court. Once the certified copy of a registered document has been filed, it is open to the plaintiff to prove the same even by summoning the copy with original signatures in the records of the concerned Registrar. 22. In the circumstances aforesaid, the petition is entitled to succeed. The order impugned in the petition is set aside and the suit is restored to its original position. CM(M) 807/2008 Page 10 of 11

11 23. The question of costs remain. I find the action of the defendant of taking the plea under Order 4 of the CPC for dismissal of the suit to be farfetched and vexatious in view of settled legal position after the judgment in Vidyawati Gupta (Supra). The defendant has thereby delayed the proceedings in the suit by over two years. Not only so, inspite of this court at the commencement of the hearing itself expressing concerns to the counsel with respect to the order impugned in the petition, the counsel continued to urge the same without any success and without being able to meet the specific queries of the court as to the effect of Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of the CPC. In the circumstances, I also impose costs of Rs.5,000/- on the respondent/defendant and payable to the counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff before the trial court. November 01, 2009 M RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) CM(M) 807/2008 Page 11 of 11

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Through: Mr. Arjun Mitra, Advocate

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Through: Mr. Arjun Mitra, Advocate * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 2348/2014 IN THE MATTER OF: ALKA KASANA Reserved on: 14.07.2015 Date of decision: 24.08.2015... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sudhir Naagar, Advocate with Mr.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012. Versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012. Versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012 DESIGN WORKS Through: Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Adv.... Appellant Versus ICICI BANK LTD... Respondent

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +CM Nos.7694-95/2010 (for restoration of CM No.266/2010 and for condonation of delay in applying for the same) in W.P.(C) 4165/2000 % Date of decision: 3 rd June,

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus. 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus. 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 23 rd July, 2010. + W.P.(C) 11305/2009, CM No.10831/2009 (u/s 151 CPC for stay), CM No.9694/2010 (u/o1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleadment) & CM No.

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 16 th February, Versus

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 16 th February, Versus *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.815/2007 % Date of decision: 16 th February, 2010 OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.... Petitioner Through: Mr. V.N. Kaura with Ms. Paramjit Benipal

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, Date of decision: 8th February, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, Date of decision: 8th February, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971 Date of decision: 8th February, 2012 WP(C) NO.11374/2006 OCEAN PLASTICS & FIBRES (P) LIMITED

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. CS(OS)No.1307/2006. Date of decision:16th January, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. CS(OS)No.1307/2006. Date of decision:16th January, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CS(OS)No.1307/2006 Date of decision:16th January, 2009 SMT. TARAN JEET KAUR... Through: Plaintiff Mr. Rajeev Awasthi, Advocate

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) NO.4707/2010. % Date of decision: 6 th December, Versus MAHAVIR SR. MODEL SCHOOL & ORS.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) NO.4707/2010. % Date of decision: 6 th December, Versus MAHAVIR SR. MODEL SCHOOL & ORS. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) NO.4707/2010 % Date of decision: 6 th December, 2010 SRISHTI SOLKAR & ANR. Through:... Petitioners Mr. U.M. Tripathi, Advocate Versus MAHAVIR SR. MODEL

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:11 th December, Through: Mr Rajat Aneja, Advocate. Versus AND. CM (M)No.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:11 th December, Through: Mr Rajat Aneja, Advocate. Versus AND. CM (M)No. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM (M) No.331/2007 % Date of decision:11 th December, 2009 SMT. SAVITRI DEVI. Petitioner Through: Mr Rajat Aneja, Advocate. Versus SMT. GAYATRI DEVI & ORS....

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: FAO (OS) 298/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: FAO (OS) 298/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: 17.01.2013 FAO (OS) 298/2010 SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABHANDHAK COMMITTEE AND ANR... Appellants Through Mr. H.S.

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(OS) No. 684/2004 % 8 th December, versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(OS) No. 684/2004 % 8 th December, versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No. 684/2004 % 8 th December, 2015 RAJESH @ RAJ CHAUDHARY AND ORS.... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Manish Vashisth and Ms. Trisha Nagpal, Advocates. versus

More information

S.M.V. AGENCIES PVT. LTD. Through: Mr. Gagan Gupta and Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocates. Versus

S.M.V. AGENCIES PVT. LTD. Through: Mr. Gagan Gupta and Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocates. Versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of decision: 11th April, 2013. CS(OS) 281/2010 & I.A. No.2055/2010 (u/o 39 R-1 & 2 CPC) S.M.V. AGENCIES PVT. LTD.... Plaintiff

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + FAO(OS) No.534/2010 & CM Nos /2010. versus. % Date of Hearing : August 25, 2010

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + FAO(OS) No.534/2010 & CM Nos /2010. versus. % Date of Hearing : August 25, 2010 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) No.534/2010 & CM Nos.15238-40/2010 RAJ KUMAR BARI & ORS...Appellant through Mr. S.D. Singh & Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advs. versus SHIV RANI & ORS...Respondent

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IA No.13139/2011 in CS(OS) 1163/2011 Date of Decision : July 05, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IA No.13139/2011 in CS(OS) 1163/2011 Date of Decision : July 05, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IA No.13139/2011 in CS(OS) 1163/2011 Date of Decision : July 05, 2012 SHAMBHU DUTT DOGRA Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate....

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE LPA 776 OF 2012, CMs No. 19869/2012 (stay), 19870/2012 (additional documents), 19871/2012 (delay) Judgment Delivered on 29.11.2012

More information

Act, with the objective to serve as a post-graduate school for advanced. teaching and research in Economics and allied subjects and to admit students

Act, with the objective to serve as a post-graduate school for advanced. teaching and research in Economics and allied subjects and to admit students *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4560/1999 % Date of decision: 16 th March, 2010 INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC GROWTH... Petitioner Through: Mr. Pawan Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate. Versus THE CONTROLLING

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.235/2000 % Date of decision: 3 rd March, 2010 DULI CHAND Through:... Petitioner Mr. Pravin Sharma, Advocate. versus P.O.LABOUR COURT-VIII & ANR. Through:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER ARB P. 180/2003. Judgment delivered on: versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER ARB P. 180/2003. Judgment delivered on: versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER ARB P. 180/2003 Judgment delivered on: 03.07.2006 ESS VEE TRADERS & OTHERS... Petitioners versus M/S AMBUJA CEMENT RAJASTHAN LIMITED...

More information

Through: Versus. Through: 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Through: Versus. Through: 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + OMP No.552/2006 % Date of decision : 06.07.2009 Sh. Surender Pal Singh Through:. Petitioner Mr. Amit Bansal & Ms. Manisha Singh, Advocates for petitioner. Versus

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO.3777 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No of 2014]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO.3777 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No of 2014] REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3777 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.13256 of 2014] Sucha Singh Sodhi (D) Thr. LRs... Appellant(s) Versus Baldev

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment reserved on: 24 th April, 2015 Judgment delivered on: 08 th October, 2015

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment reserved on: 24 th April, 2015 Judgment delivered on: 08 th October, 2015 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 24 th April, 2015 Judgment delivered on: 08 th October, 2015 + FAO(OS) 220/2015 & CM Nos.7502/2015, 7504/2015 SERGI TRANSFORMER EXPLOSION

More information

Through: Ms. Amrit Kaur Oberai with Mr. Aman Singh, Advs. Versus

Through: Ms. Amrit Kaur Oberai with Mr. Aman Singh, Advs. Versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of decision: 2nd July, 2014 FAO(OS) 178/2014 & CM No.6231/2014 (for stay) SMT SUMITRA PARASHAR & ANR... Appellants Through:

More information

Vidyawati Gupta & Ors vs Bhakti Hari Nayak & Ors on 3 February, 2006

Vidyawati Gupta & Ors vs Bhakti Hari Nayak & Ors on 3 February, 2006 Supreme Court of India Vidyawati Gupta & Ors vs Bhakti Hari Nayak & Ors on 3 February, 2006 Author: A Kabir Bench: B.P. Singh, Altamas Kabir CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3005 of 2005 PETITIONER: Vidyawati

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6105/2011. % SADHNA BHARDWAJ.. Petitioner Through: Mr. Dipak Bhattarcharya, Adv.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6105/2011. % SADHNA BHARDWAJ.. Petitioner Through: Mr. Dipak Bhattarcharya, Adv. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6105/2011 Date of decision: 1 st September, 2011 % SADHNA BHARDWAJ.. Petitioner Through: Mr. Dipak Bhattarcharya, Adv. Versus THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

More information

2 entered into an agreement, which is called a Conducting Agreement, with the respondent on In terms of the agreement, the appellant was r

2 entered into an agreement, which is called a Conducting Agreement, with the respondent on In terms of the agreement, the appellant was r Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2973-2974 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.10635-10636 of 2014) BLACK PEARL HOTELS (PVT) LTD Appellant(s) VERSUS

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No of versus J U D G M E N T

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No of versus J U D G M E N T Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10863 of 2017 ABDULRASAKH.Appellant versus K.P. MOHAMMED & ORS... Respondents J U D G M E N T SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 C.R.P. 589/1998. Date of Decision: 6th March, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 C.R.P. 589/1998. Date of Decision: 6th March, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 C.R.P. 589/1998 Date of Decision: 6th March, 2009 SURINDER KAUR Through: Petitioner Ms. Nandni Sahni, Advocate. versus SARDAR

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. IPA No.15/2005. Date of decision : November 20, Vs.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. IPA No.15/2005. Date of decision : November 20, Vs. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IPA No.15/2005 Date of decision : November 20, 2007 Sarbjyot Kaur Saluja and Ors Through: Ms.Geeta Luthra, Advocate.... Plaintiffs

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : APPOINTMENT MATTER Date of decision: 11th July, 2012 W.P.(C) No.1343/1998.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : APPOINTMENT MATTER Date of decision: 11th July, 2012 W.P.(C) No.1343/1998. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : APPOINTMENT MATTER Date of decision: 11th July, 2012 W.P.(C) No.1343/1998 SRI GURU TEGH BAHADUR KHALSA POST GRADUATE EVENING COLLEGE Through: None....

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION. Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.4998/2012 in CS(OS) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION. Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.4998/2012 in CS(OS) No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Judgment pronounced on: 10.04.2012 I.A. No.4998/2012 in CS(OS) No.136/2009 SUGANDHA SETHI...Plaintiff Through: Ms. N.Shoba with Mr.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Judgment delivered on: CS(OS) 2318/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Judgment delivered on: CS(OS) 2318/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Judgment delivered on: 14.08.2012 CS(OS) 2318/2006 MR. CHETAN DAYAL Through: Ms Yashmeet Kaur, Adv.... Plaintiff versus MRS. ARUNA MALHOTRA

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 210 OF 2007 STATE BANK OF PATIALA APPELLANT MUKESH JAIN & ANR.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 210 OF 2007 STATE BANK OF PATIALA APPELLANT MUKESH JAIN & ANR. 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 210 OF 2007 STATE BANK OF PATIALA APPELLANT VERSUS MUKESH JAIN & ANR. RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T ANIL R. DAVE,

More information

.. IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI:AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. I.A. No /2006 in C.S.(OS) No.795/2004

.. IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI:AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. I.A. No /2006 in C.S.(OS) No.795/2004 .. IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI:AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE I.A. No. 11454/2006 in C.S.(OS) No.795/2004 Judgment Reserved on: 09.08.2011 Judgment Pronounced on: 02.11.2011 MADAN LAL KHANNA

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 28 th January, 2011. + I.A. Nos.3714/2004 & 2051/2005 (both u/o 39 R 1& 2 CPC) & I.A. No.8355/2010 (u/o 3 R IV(2) for discharge of counsel for

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 Date of decision: 19th April, 2011 W.P.(C) 8647/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 Date of decision: 19th April, 2011 W.P.(C) 8647/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 Date of decision: 19th April, 2011 W.P.(C) 8647/2007 JINGLE BELL AMUSEMENT PARK P. LTD. Through: Mr. V.K. Goel, Advocate... Petitioner

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: RSA No.46/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: RSA No.46/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: 10.3.2011 RSA No.46/2011 VIRENDER KUMAR & ANR. Through: Mr.Atul Kumar, Advocate...Appellants Versus JASWANT RAI

More information

Through Mr. Atul Nigam, Mr. Amit Tiwari, Advs. versus

Through Mr. Atul Nigam, Mr. Amit Tiwari, Advs. versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OA 92/2013 & IA Nos. 132/2013, 18787/2012, 218/2013, 1581/2013 in CS(OS) 3081/2012 Reserved on: 29th October, 2013 Decided on:

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO Of 2011 SRI MAHABIR PROSAD CHOUDHARY...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO Of 2011 SRI MAHABIR PROSAD CHOUDHARY...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPORTABLE CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8320 Of 2011 SRI MAHABIR PROSAD CHOUDHARY...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. OCTAVIUS TEA AND INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR....RESPONDENT(S)

More information

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 236/2017 ARUN JAITLEY versus Through:... Plaintiff Mr Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manik Dogra and Mr. Saurabh Seth, Advocates. ARVIND KEJRIWAL

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Decision : December 3, 2012 CS(OS) 1785/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Decision : December 3, 2012 CS(OS) 1785/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Decision : December 3, 2012 CS(OS) 1785/2010 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Ajay

More information

#1 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. MR RAJBIR ORS... Defendant Through: Ex Parte

#1 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. MR RAJBIR ORS... Defendant Through: Ex Parte #1 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 222/2016 TATA SONS LIMITED Through:... Plaintiff Ms. Geetanjali Visvanathan with Ms. Asavari Jain, Advocates versus MR RAJBIR JINDAL @ ORS...

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION. Judgment Reserved on: Judgment Pronounced on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION. Judgment Reserved on: Judgment Pronounced on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Judgment Reserved on: 31.03.2011 Judgment Pronounced on: 06.04.2011 IA No. 4427/2011 in CS(OS) No. 669/2011 TANU GOEL & ANR... Plaintiff

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RSA No. 252/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 15th January,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RSA No. 252/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 15th January, IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RSA No. 252/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 15th January, 2014 SURESH BALA & ORS Through: Mr. B.S.Mann, Advocate....Appellants VERSUS

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7262/2014

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7262/2014 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7262/2014 Pronounced on: 03.02.2015 PRINCE KUMAR & ORS.... Appellant Through: Mr.Anil Sapra, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Tarun Kumar Tiwari, Mr.Mukesh Sukhija, Ms.Rupali

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, CM(M) 374/2008 with CM Nos. 4286/2008 and 13305/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, CM(M) 374/2008 with CM Nos. 4286/2008 and 13305/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 CM(M) 374/2008 with CM Nos. 4286/2008 and 13305/2008 Reserved on : March 04, 2009 Date of Decision : March 17th, 2009 POONAM

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No.117 OF 2019 [Arising out of SLP (C) No of 2014] Versus

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No.117 OF 2019 [Arising out of SLP (C) No of 2014] Versus REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.117 OF 2019 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19516 of 2014] Sushil Thomas Abraham... Appellant(s) Versus M/s Skyline Build.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : THE ARCHITECTS ACT, 1972 Date of decision: 4th January, 2012 WP(C) NO.8653/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : THE ARCHITECTS ACT, 1972 Date of decision: 4th January, 2012 WP(C) NO.8653/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : THE ARCHITECTS ACT, 1972 Date of decision: 4th January, 2012 WP(C) NO.8653/2008 INSTITUTE OF TOWN PLANNERS, INDIA... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar

More information

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR... Defendants Through: Mr. Pawan Mathur, Advocate. CS(OS) 1442/2004 & I.A.7528/2013 (of defendant u/o 7 R-11 CPC)

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR... Defendants Through: Mr. Pawan Mathur, Advocate. CS(OS) 1442/2004 & I.A.7528/2013 (of defendant u/o 7 R-11 CPC) IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 Date of decision: 1st July, 2014 CS(OS) 1441/2004 & I.A.7527/2013 (of defendant u/o 7 R-11 CPC) SAMANIT ENTERPRISES & ANR Through:

More information

Sri J. Prakash vs Smt. M.T. Kamalamma And Anr. on 12 October, 2007

Sri J. Prakash vs Smt. M.T. Kamalamma And Anr. on 12 October, 2007 Karnataka High Court Karnataka High Court Equivalent citations: AIR 2008 Kant 26, ILR 2007 KAR 4752, 2008 (2) KarLJ 202 Author: S A Nazeer Bench: S A Nazeer JUDGMENT S. Abdul Nazeer, J. 1. In this case,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Reserved on: 5th August, Date of decision: 19th September, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Reserved on: 5th August, Date of decision: 19th September, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Reserved on: 5th August, 2011 Date of decision: 19th September, 2011 FAO(OS) 502/2009 LT. COL S.D. SURIE Through: -versus-..appellant

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Date of Judgment: RSA No.251/2008 & CM Nos.17860/2008 & 11828/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Date of Judgment: RSA No.251/2008 & CM Nos.17860/2008 & 11828/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Date of Judgment: 28.4.2011 RSA No.251/2008 & CM Nos.17860/2008 & 11828/2010 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD..Appellant Through: Mr.P.K.Seth,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERPETUAL, MANDATORY INJUNCTION. Date of Judgment: CM(M) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERPETUAL, MANDATORY INJUNCTION. Date of Judgment: CM(M) No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERPETUAL, MANDATORY INJUNCTION Date of Judgment: 14.02.2012 CM(M) No.557/2008 DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD. Through: Mr. D.K. Malhotra, Advocate....

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI WATER BOARD ACT, Date of decision: 4th February, 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI WATER BOARD ACT, Date of decision: 4th February, 2011. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI WATER BOARD ACT, 1998 Date of decision: 4th February, 2011. W.P.(C) 8711-15/2005 & CM No.8018/2005 & CM No.6522/2005 (both for stay) FEDERATION OF

More information

Mr. Mukesh Gupta, APP for the State. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. for R-2. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

Mr. Mukesh Gupta, APP for the State. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. for R-2. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 CRL.M.C. No. 3426/2011 & Crl.M.A. No. 12164/2011(Stay) Reserved on:6th March, 2012 Decided on: 20th March, 2012 DHEERAJ

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. AA No.396/2007. Date of decision: December 3, Vs.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. AA No.396/2007. Date of decision: December 3, Vs. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 AA No.396/2007 Date of decision: December 3, 2007 AKG Associates Through: Mr.Rajiv Kumar, Advocate....Petitioner

More information

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRP 17 of 2017

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRP 17 of 2017 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) 1. KANHAIYA LAL KANKANI CRP 17 of 2017 2. SMT. RAJ KUMARI KANKANI..Petitioners -Versus- 1. AMBIKA SUPPLY AND SERVICES

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5096/2015 & Crl.M.A /2015 Date of Decision : January 13 th, 2016.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5096/2015 & Crl.M.A /2015 Date of Decision : January 13 th, 2016. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5096/2015 & Crl.M.A. 18348/2015 Date of Decision : January 13 th, 2016 ANGLE INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.... Petitioner Through Mr.Akhil Sibal,Ms.Bina Gupta,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. M/s Raptakos, Brett & Co. Ltd... Appellant(s) J U D G M E N T. 1) The above appeal has been filed against the judgment

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. M/s Raptakos, Brett & Co. Ltd... Appellant(s) J U D G M E N T. 1) The above appeal has been filed against the judgment REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1464 OF 2008 M/s Raptakos, Brett & Co. Ltd.... Appellant(s) Versus M/s Ganesh Property... Respondent(s) J U D G M

More information

WRIT PETITION NO OF Dr. Madhav Vishwanath Dawalbhakta (Decd) through LRs. Dr. Nitin M. Dawalbhakta & Ors. Versus

WRIT PETITION NO OF Dr. Madhav Vishwanath Dawalbhakta (Decd) through LRs. Dr. Nitin M. Dawalbhakta & Ors. Versus Vidya Amin IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4217 OF 2018 Dr. Madhav Vishwanath Dawalbhakta (Decd) through LRs. Dr. Nitin M. Dawalbhakta & Ors. Versus

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Mr. Vivek Madhok & Mr. J.P. Gupta, Advocates. Versus MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANR.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Mr. Vivek Madhok & Mr. J.P. Gupta, Advocates. Versus MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANR. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 70/2010 % PRATEEK SINGH PATEL Through: Date of decision: 8 th July, 2010.... Petitioner Mr. Vivek Madhok & Mr. J.P. Gupta, Advocates. Versus MEDICAL COUNCIL

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION. CM No of 2005 in W.P. (C) No of 1987

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION. CM No of 2005 in W.P. (C) No of 1987 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION CM No. 15134 of 2005 in W.P. (C) No. 1043 of 1987 Orders reserved on : 26th July, 2006 Date of Decision : 7th August, 2006 LATE BAWA HARBANS

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT Date of decision: 10th January, 2012 LPA No.18/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT Date of decision: 10th January, 2012 LPA No.18/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT Date of decision: 10th January, 2012 LPA No.18/2012 SH. DUSHYANT SHARMA...Appellant Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv.

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + W.P.(C) No.2037/1992 & CM No.3935/1992 (for interim relief). Versus

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + W.P.(C) No.2037/1992 & CM No.3935/1992 (for interim relief). Versus *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 20 th September, 2010. + W.P.(C) No.2037/1992 & CM No.3935/1992 (for interim relief). % SH. SATISH CHAND KAPOOR (DECEASED) THROUGH LR s Through:...

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION ACT. Arb. Appl. No. 261/2008. Date of decision :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION ACT. Arb. Appl. No. 261/2008. Date of decision : IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION ACT Arb. Appl. No. 261/2008 Date of decision : 14.01.2009 STERLITE OPTCAL TECHNOLOGIES LTD..Petitioner Through: Mr. Tarun Gulati and Mr. Neil

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY CS(OS) No.1177/2003 DATE OF DECISION :23rd July, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY CS(OS) No.1177/2003 DATE OF DECISION :23rd July, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY CS(OS) No.1177/2003 DATE OF DECISION :23rd July, 2012 MRS VEENA JAIN... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Mohan Vidhani, Advocate with Mr. Rahul

More information

$~9. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % RSA 228/2015 and C.M. No.12883/2015. versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

$~9. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % RSA 228/2015 and C.M. No.12883/2015. versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI $~9. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision: 03.09.2015 % RSA 228/2015 and C.M. No.12883/2015 SHRI BABU LAL Through: Mr. V. Shukla, Advocate.... Appellant versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RC. REV. No.35/2009. % Date of decision:29 th January, Versus

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RC. REV. No.35/2009. % Date of decision:29 th January, Versus *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RC. REV. No.35/2009 % Date of decision:29 th January, 2010 SARWAN DASS BANGE Through:... Petitioner Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anshu Mahajan &

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 29 th March, LPA No.777/2010

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 29 th March, LPA No.777/2010 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 29 th March, 2012 + LPA No.777/2010 % ANAND BHUSHAN...Appellant Through: Ms. Girija Krishan Varma, Adv. Versus R.A. HARITASH Through: CORAM

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO NO.82/1996. % Date of decision: 12 th January, Versus

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO NO.82/1996. % Date of decision: 12 th January, Versus *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO NO.82/1996 % Date of decision: 12 th January, 2010 DR. NATHU LAL VAISHI & ANR.. Appellants Through: Mr. V.B. Andley, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajinder Mathur,

More information

CRP No. 216/2014 VERSUS. Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. CRP No. 220/2014 VERSUS. Bajrang Tea manufacturing Co. [P] Ltd.

CRP No. 216/2014 VERSUS. Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. CRP No. 220/2014 VERSUS. Bajrang Tea manufacturing Co. [P] Ltd. IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) The Federal Bank Ltd. Petitioner VERSUS Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. Respondents CRP No. 220/2014 The Federal

More information

Versus. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.VI,... Respondents. Delhi and Anr. Through Ms.Amita Gupta, Advocate

Versus. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.VI,... Respondents. Delhi and Anr. Through Ms.Amita Gupta, Advocate IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER Writ Petition (C) No.4397/1999 Reserved on : 13. 03.2007 Date of decision : 03.04.2007 IN THE MATTER OF : Rameshwar Dayal...Petitioner.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: 07.03.2012 I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No.1674/2011 SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Through Mr. J.S. Mann, Adv....

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 7 th September, 2016

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 7 th September, 2016 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 7 th September, 2016 + CS(OS) 1602/2006 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY LTD. AND ANR.... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Adv. Versus MR. GYANJI

More information

- versus - MAHAMEDHA URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ORS

- versus - MAHAMEDHA URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ORS IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION Judgment Reserved on: 24th February, 2011 Judgment Pronounced on: 28th February, 2011 CS(OS) No. 2305/2010 SUSHMA SURI & ANR... Plaintiffs

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. I.A. No.1167/2007 in CS(OS) No.2128/2006. Judgment Reserved on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. I.A. No.1167/2007 in CS(OS) No.2128/2006. Judgment Reserved on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE I.A. No.1167/2007 in CS(OS) No.2128/2006 Judgment Reserved on: 24.07.2007 Judgment delivered on: 04.03.2008 Mr. V.K. Sayal Through:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : EXCISE ACT, 1944 CENTRAL EXCISE ACT CASE NOS. 48/2012 & 49/2012 Date of decision: 2nd August, 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : EXCISE ACT, 1944 CENTRAL EXCISE ACT CASE NOS. 48/2012 & 49/2012 Date of decision: 2nd August, 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : EXCISE ACT, 1944 CENTRAL EXCISE ACT CASE NOS. 48/2012 & 49/2012 Date of decision: 2nd August, 2013 HINDUSTAN INSECTICIEDES LTD.... Appellant Through Mr.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No. 581/2003. DATE OF DECISION : 13th March, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No. 581/2003. DATE OF DECISION : 13th March, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RFA No. 581/2003 DATE OF DECISION : 13th March, 2012 M/S B.R.METAL CORPN. & ORS. Appellants Through : Mr. A.K. Singla, Sr. Advocate

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 31 st March, Versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 31 st March, Versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 31 st March, 2016. + W.P.(C) No. 7359/2014 & CM No.17214/2014 (for stay) KUNAL CHAUHAN Through: Ms. Nandita Rao, Adv.... Petitioner Versus

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Rent Control Act R.C.REV.29/2012 Date of Decision: Versus

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Rent Control Act R.C.REV.29/2012 Date of Decision: Versus THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Rent Control Act R.C.REV.29/2012 Date of Decision: 17.08.2012 SMT. NARENDER KAUR Through: Mr. Adarsh Ganesh, Adv... Petitioner Versus MAHESH CHAND AND

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI COMPANY JURISDICTION. CCP (Co.) No. 8 of 2008 COMPANY PETITION NO. 215 OF 2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI COMPANY JURISDICTION. CCP (Co.) No. 8 of 2008 COMPANY PETITION NO. 215 OF 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI COMPANY JURISDICTION CCP (Co.) No. 8 of 2008 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 215 OF 2005 Reserved on: 26-11-2010 Date of pronouncement : 18-01-2011 M/s Sanjay Cold Storage..Petitioner

More information

CS(COMM) 49/2017 Page 1 of 7

CS(COMM) 49/2017 Page 1 of 7 $~3. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 49/2017 & IA No.885/2017 (U/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC). VEEKESY RUBBER INDUSTRIES PVT LTD... Plaintiff Through: Dr. Sheetal Vohra, Mr. Sridharan R. Ram

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. CS (OS) No.284/2012. Date of order:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. CS (OS) No.284/2012. Date of order: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION CS (OS) No.284/2012 Date of order: 02.03.2012 M/S ASHWANI PAN PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Through: None. Plaintiff Versus M/S KRISHNA

More information

Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Mr. Nitish Jain & Mr. Jatin Sethi, Advs. Versus

Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Mr. Nitish Jain & Mr. Jatin Sethi, Advs. Versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Date of decision: 29th January, 2014 LPA 548/2013, CMs No.11737/2013 (for stay), 11739/2013 & 11740/2013 (both for condonation

More information

J U D G M E N T WITH C.A. No. 4455/2005 HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.

J U D G M E N T WITH C.A. No. 4455/2005 HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J. Supreme Court of India Makhan Singh (D) By Lrs vs Kulwant Singh on 30 March, 2007 Author: H S Bedi Bench: B.P. Singh, Harjit Singh Bedi CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4446 of 2005 PETITIONER: Makhan Singh (D)

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 20 OF Vs. DEVAS MULTIMEDIA P. LTD...

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 20 OF Vs. DEVAS MULTIMEDIA P. LTD... 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 20 OF 2011 ANTRIX CORP. LTD....PETITIONER Vs. DEVAS MULTIMEDIA P. LTD....RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T ALTAMAS

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: M/S MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD Petitioner.

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: M/S MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD Petitioner. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 30.07.2010 + WP (C) 11932/2009 M/S MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD Petitioner - versus THE VALUE ADDED TAX OFFICER & ANR... Respondent

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 3 rd January, CS(OS) 3534/2012. Versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 3 rd January, CS(OS) 3534/2012. Versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 3 rd January, 2018. + CS(OS) 3534/2012 ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PVT LTD... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Ranjan Narula, Mr. Shashi P. Ojha & Ms. Astha Bhardwaj,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT. Date of decision: 8th March, 2013 EFA(OS) 34/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT. Date of decision: 8th March, 2013 EFA(OS) 34/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT Date of decision: 8th March, 2013 EFA(OS) 34/2012 HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.... Appellant Through: Mr.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION ACT, Date of decision: WP(C) No. 3595/2011 and CM Nos.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION ACT, Date of decision: WP(C) No. 3595/2011 and CM Nos. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 Date of decision: 24.05.2011 WP(C) No. 3595/2011 and CM Nos.7523/2011 YUDHVIR SINGH Versus Through: PETITIONER Mr.N.S.Dalal,

More information

I have had the benefit of perusing the judgment of my. esteemed learned brother, Hon ble Justice Shri S.B. Sinha,

I have had the benefit of perusing the judgment of my. esteemed learned brother, Hon ble Justice Shri S.B. Sinha, TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI DATED 18 th JULY, 2011 Petition No. 275 (C) of 2009 Reliance Communications Limited.. Petitioner Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited..... Respondent

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION Judgment reserved on : 26.04.2011 Judgment delivered on : 28.04.2011 R.S.A.No. 109/2007 & CM No. 5092/2007 RAMESH PRAKASH

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment pronounced on: 20 th April, versus. Advocates who appeared in this case:

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment pronounced on: 20 th April, versus. Advocates who appeared in this case: * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: 20 th April, 2017 + W.P.(C) 7850/2014 M/S. IRITECH INC versus... Petitioner THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS... Respondents Advocates who appeared

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, Date of Judgment :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, Date of Judgment : IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 Date of Judgment : 16.02.2012 CRP 128/2004 and CM No. 85/2012 M/S R.S. BUILDERS & ENGINEERS LTD. Through Mr. Prabhjit

More information

CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No of 2016) MOHD. SAHID AND OTHERS.Appellants VERSUS J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No of 2016) MOHD. SAHID AND OTHERS.Appellants VERSUS J U D G M E N T REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10379 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8586 of 2016) MOHD. SAHID AND OTHERS.Appellants VERSUS RAZIYA KHANAM (D)

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRP NO.6 OF 2017

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRP NO.6 OF 2017 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRP NO.6 OF 2017 1. SMTI. TETERI DEVI, Wife of Late Mohendra Harizon. 2. SHRI RAMANANDA HARIZON, Son of Late Mohendra

More information

PRADEEP KUMAR MASKARA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

PRADEEP KUMAR MASKARA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. PRADEEP KUMAR MASKARA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9844-9846 OF 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FAO.No.301/2010 Reserved on: Decided on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FAO.No.301/2010 Reserved on: Decided on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FAO.No.301/2010 Reserved on:09.02.2011 Decided on: 18.02.2011 WOLLAQUE VENTILATION & CONDITIONING PVT LTD. Appellant Through: Mr.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Date of Judgment: RSA No.53/2011 & CM. Nos /2011. Versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Date of Judgment: RSA No.53/2011 & CM. Nos /2011. Versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : BENAMI TRANSACTIONS (PROHIBITION) ACT, 1988 Date of Judgment: 22.03.2011 RSA No.53/2011 & CM. Nos. 5887-88/2011 MANOJ GUPTA Through: Mr.P.N.Dham, Advocate...Appellant

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment Pronounced on: versus -...Respondent

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment Pronounced on: versus -...Respondent THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Pronounced on: 19.01.2011 + Test.Cas. 75/2008 Smt. Geeta Devi Goel.. Petitioner - versus - State...Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the

More information